[lbo-talk] socially irresponsible investment

John Adams jadams01 at sprynet.com
Sat Apr 16 07:55:35 PDT 2005


On Apr 16, 2005, at 10:24 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:


>> Yes--there are tiny communities in scattered locations representing a
>> fraction of a percent of the people who tried this. They are little
>> blemishes on an otherwise unbroken record of heartbreak, misery, and
>> human waste from the mass delusions of the back-to-the-land movement.
>> Typical hippie narcissistic stupidity of the anti-humane sort.
>
> That's a little too harsh - they were trying, and who knew what would
> work 35 years ago?

Fair enough. But after a few years of trying, it'd be nice if they'd looked for an alternative a little sooner. By, oh, 1985, that people were still pissing their lives away at The Farm was no longer acceptable.


> But now we know it just isn't enough. You're never going to get more
> than a handful of people who want to live Twin Oaks-style - and Twin
> Oaks itself survives by selling hammocks, cashew butter, and web
> design to the outside world. It's a way of carving out your own niche
> while leaving the balance unchanged. It free-rides on industrial
> society, while leaving most other social relations unchanged. Beats
> living purely inside your own head, but it's not unrelated to that.

I've tried a time or two to subtly taunt you into discussing the Gang of Four song from _Land of the Free_ which contains the "include myself out" line. I don't think they were just alluding to the Samuel Goldwyn quote. (I wasn't absolutely certain I remembered who said it, so I googled the phrase, and the second entry turned out to be very interesting: http://www.google.com/search? hl=en&q=%22include+me+out%22&btnG=Google+Search If you don't see a result related to recent discussions here, add the search term Y2K and see what bubbles up to the top.) I'll take one more shot at it--it seemed to me that parts of album were as much about inner-head withdrawal as their earlier career was not. You think?

And speaking of allusions:


>> I have some thoughts on this, beginning with: What do you do with
>> people for whom four walls are four too many?
>
> Three too many, please! Comrade Stalin deserves nothing less than
> total accuracy.

That wasn't a quote, but an allusion, springing from the number of people who decided they could go back to the earth without a structure in which to dwell--no walls, right? Mostly they showed up with tents, and yes, I know a tent has walls of a sort, but the idea of living in one as a permanent living solution is just a little loopy.

And no, I'm not seriously suggesting that the solution is to try out the one-wall solution (would this be the New Wall Order? Hm), even though it has a certain emotional appeal.

John A



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list